Ijetae 0412 74

International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering
Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, Volume 2, Issue 4, April 2012)
Suggested Modifications of the Conventional Rigid Method for

Mat Foundation Design
S. Shihada1 , J. Hamad2 and M. Alshorafa3
1
Professor, Civil Engr. Dept, IUG-Gaza
2
Assistant Professor, Civil Engr. Dept, IUG-Gaza- Corresponding Author:
3
M.Sc in Structural Engineering
1
sshihada@iugaza.edu.ps
2
jhamad@iugaza.edu.ps
3
mznshorafa7@gmail.com
Abstract:- The conventional rigid method for mat Teng [4] describes the conventional rigid method, where
foundation design is characterized by its ease in execution and the pressure under the mat follows a planar distribution
therefore, suitable for hand calculations and for small-size such that the centroid of the bearing pressure coincides
mats. Nevertheless, the method is impeded by its inability to with the line of action of the resultant force of all column
satisfy the equations of static equilibrium, which makes the loads acting on the mat. Then, the mat is analyzed as a
evaluation of correct shear forces and bending moments
whole in each of the two perpendicular directions and the
rather impossible. This study aims at satisfying the
equilibrium equations, by suggesting three modification total shear forces and bending moments at any section
procedures of the conventional rigid method, in order to cutting across the mat is equal to the arithmetic sum of all
construct correct shear force and bending moment diagrams. forces and reactions on the left, or right, of this section. The
Based on the results of this study, it is found that the three stress distribution along this section is a problem of a
proposed modification approaches constitute lower-bound, highly indeterminate nature.
average and upper-bound solutions to the internal forces, with ACI committee 3362R [2] suggests that mats may be
maximum differences between upper and lower-bound designed and analyzed as either rigid bodies or as flexible
solutions not exceeding 16 %. plates supported by elastic foundation. In case column
Keywords:- Mat; Shear; Moment; Rigid; Modification
Factor; Conventional
spacing is less than 1.75 divided by or the mat is very
thick and variation of column loads and spacing is not over
I. INTRODUCTION 20%, mat may be designed by treating it as a rigid body
and considering strips both ways. These strips are analyzed
The structural design of reinforced concrete mat as combined footings with multiple column loads and
foundations has been for many years one of the least loaded with the soil pressure on the strip and column
satisfactory areas of design [1]. reactions equal to loads obtained from the superstructure
Mats may be designed and analyzed as either rigid analysis. Since a mat transfers load horizontally, any given
bodies or as flexible plates supported by an elastic strip may not satisfy vertical load summation.
foundation. An exact theoretical design of a mat on elastic The effect of column spacing on the behavior of a five
foundation can be made; however a number of factors story building is studied by Naratajan and Videivelli [5],
reduce the exactness to a combination of approximations. where they conclude that column spacing has a marginal
These include difficulty in predicting subgrade responses, effect on the contact pressure. Moreover, they state that the
variations in soil properties, mat shape, variety of increase in mat thickness results in reduced settlement
superstructure loads and effect of superstructure stiffness increased bending moments and reduced uniform pressure.
on mat. The analysis and design is carried out using any of Bowels [6] states that the mats may be designed as rigid
the following methods [2]: structures where the mat is sub-divided into a series of
Conventional Rigid Method, continuous beams (strips) centered on the appropriate
Approximate Flexible Method, column lines.
Finite Difference Method and For the series of beams, shear and moment diagram may
be established using either combined footing analysis or
Finite Element Method.
beam moment coefficients. When the soil bearing pressure
For rigid mat design using the conventional rigid
is low say 25 kN/m2 he suggests that the mat may be
method, two approaches have been suggested; the inverted
designed as an inverted flat slab, using heavy beams from
floor system and the combined footing approach [3].
column to column.
418
The portion between beams is designed as a In this work, the conventional rigid method, using
conventional one or two way slabs. Furthermore, Bowels the strip method, is to be modified using three different
[7] requires that the strip loads need to be adjusted so that approaches that satisfy the equilibrium of forces in the
statics is satisfied since the shear between adjacent strips is vertical direction as well as the summation of moments at
not included in the strip free body. For column loads not any point along the considered strip. Consequently, correct
falling at the center of the strip area, a nonlinear soil shear force and bending moment diagrams can be achieved.
pressure diagram is to be used to close the shear and
moment diagrams. Later on, it is affirmed that the method III. THE CONVENTIONAL RIGID METHOD-CASE STUDY
is not recommended at present because of the substantial A case-study of mat foundation design is worked out
amount of approximations and the wide availability of using the conventional rigid method as described in Das
computer programs that are relatively easy to use [8, 9]. [10] to show its shortcomings. See Figure-1 and Table-1
Das [10] presents the conventional rigid method using for dimensions and loading. Note that ACI 318-08 load
strips between column lines in both directions. He proposes factors are followed [12].
a method for satisfying static equilibrium of forces
resulting from ignoring shear between adjacent strips. This
is done through two sets of modification factors, one for
column loads and the other for soil pressures at both ends
of each of the individual strips. The soil pressure under
each strip is taken as the average of the two values at the
end of each strip. Furthermore Das [11] proposes that the
soil pressure is not to be averaged at the bottom of each
strip while adopting the same modification procedure
described in Das [10].
II. IMPORTANCE OF MODIFIED/PROPOSED

CONVENTIONAL RIGID METHOD
The conventional rigid method is characterized by
its simplicity and ease in execution. On the other hand, the
resultant of column loads doesn't coincide with the
resultant of soil pressure under the individual strips, which
leads to violation of the static equilibrium equations. Most
prestigious foundation design textbooks shy away from this
fact either by selecting symmetrically-loaded strips and
using uniform soil pressure to reduce the eccentricity to
zero, or by drawing mistaken shear force and bending
moment diagrams that do not close [7, 9, 10, 11]. Others
analyzed the mat as a whole in each of the two
perpendicular directions and evaluated the shears and Figure 1 Layout of mat foundation (cm)
moments along selected sections [4]. The stress distribution
along this section is a problem of a high indeterminacy.
419
Table 1
Load calculations
Column D.L L.L Qu Xi Q u Xi Yi Q u Yi

(kN) (kN) (kN) (m) (kN.m) (m) (kN.m)
C1 780 390 1560 0 0.00 21 32760
C2 1601 801 3202 5 16010 21 67240
C3 1446 723 2892 10 28920 21 60732
C4 671 336 1342 15 20130 21 28182
C5 1572 786 3144 0 0.00 14 44016
C6 3231 1616 6462 5 32310 14 90468
C7 2953 1477 5906 10 59060 14 82684
C8 1383 692 2766 15 41490 14 38724
C9 1338 669 2676 0 0.00 7 18732
C10 2804 1402 5608 5 28040 7 39256
C11 2868 1434 5736 10 57360 7 40152
C12 1360 680 2720 15 40800 7 19040
C13 603 302 1206 0 0.00 0 0.00
C14 1275 638 2550 5 12750 0 0.00
C15 1316 658 2632 10 26320 0 0.00
C16 626 313 1252 15 18780 0 0.00
51654 381970 561988
Step 1: Evaluate the factored net soil pressure under the

mat
The eccentricity ex is given as The average uniform soil pressure is given by
381970 160.57 131.24
ex 7.5 0.105 m q u ,avg 145.9 kN / m 2
51654 2
The eccentricity ey is given as Total soil reaction = 145.9 (22.4) (5) = 16340.8 kN
561988 Total column loads = 17822 kN
ey 10.5 0.38 m 16340.8 17822.5
51654 = 17081.6 kN Average load
5,1654 ( 54350 ) x 19621 y 2
qu ,net
358.4 7645.9 14985.9 Column modification factor =
17081.6
0.958
144.1 ( 7.1 ) x 13.1 y 17822.0
17081.6
Step 2- Draw shear and bending moment diagrams Soil pressure modification factor = 1.045
The mat is divided into four strips in the first 16340.9
perpendicular direction and another four in the second Average modified soil pressures are 167.8 kN/m2 and
direction. Strip BDKM which is 22.4 m long and 5 m wide 137.2 kN/m2 at points C and L respectively.
is considered here for demonstrable purposes. Shear force and bending moment diagrams for strip
BDKM are shown in Figures-2 and 3.
q C 160.57 kN / m 2
q L 131.24 kN / m 2
420
3190.1
2334.6 1962.2
585.8
- 481.8
- 2483.2 - 3003.4 - 3040.4
Figure 2 Shear force diagram for strip BDKM (kN)
- 5610.0
- 3520.3 - 2924.6 - 3016.9
- 2848.5
205.2 729.6
2875.0
Figure 3 Bending moment diagram for strip BDKM (kN.m)
It is noticed that while the shear force diagram satisfies

the equilibrium of forces in the vertical direction, the
bending moment diagram fails to do so, yielding a bending
moment of 3016.9 kN.m at the end of the strip, instead of
zero.
IV. PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS OF THE

CONVENTIONAL RIGID METHOD:
In this section three proposed modifications are applied
to the conventional rigid method and shear and bending Figure 4 Strip loads- First proposed modification
moment diagrams are drawn for strip BDKM.
Using the above equation, the resultants of the soil
A. First proposed modification: pressure under the strip and the resultant of the columns
In this proposed modification, the strip shown in Figure- loads will have the same line of action. Then, shear force
4 is treated as a combined footing with the planar soil and bending moment diagrams can be easily constructed.
distribution evaluated for the entire mat being ignored. Modified loads acting on strip BDKM are shown in Figure-
Therefore, a new soil pressure under mat ends is evaluated 5.
based on the strip columns loads from the following
equation. Qu 3202 6462 5608 2505 17822 KN
3202( 0.7 ) 6462( 7.7 ) 5608( 14.7 ) 2550( 21.7 )
Qu Qu e x B/2 Xl 10.65m
q 1,2 ( new ) (1) 17822
A Iy
22.4
ex 10.65 0.55 m
2
A 22.4 5 112 m 2
421
5 22.4 3
I 4683.1 m 4
12
17822 17822( 0.55 )( 22.4 )( 0.5 )
q1 182.56 kN / m 2
112 46831
17822 17822( 0.55 )( 22.4 )( 0.5 )
q2 135.68 kN / m 2
112 46831
The modified soil pressure and column loads for strip
BDKM are shown in Figure-5. Figure 5 Loads acting on strip BDKM- First proposed modification
Figures 6 and 7 show the shear and bending moment

diagrams, respectively for strip BDKM. One can easily
observe that the equilibrium equations are satisfied for
shear as well as for bending moment.
3518.6
2626 2072.8
636.7
- 477.2
- 2565.3 - 2943.4 - 2982
Figure 6 Shear force diagram for strip BDKM- First proposed modification
(kN)
- 3449.9
- 2921
- 1424.5
223.1 166.7
3048.8
3859.8
Figure 7 Moment diagram for strip BDKM- First proposed modification (kN.m)
B. Second proposed modification: Equation (2) is evaluated through application of static

This includes modifying the columns loads on the strip equilibrium of forces in the vertical direction.
only through modification factors for columns loads based
q q2
F1 (QLeft ) F2 Q
on the planar soil pressure under the entire mat. Two )2)
Right ) 1 Bi B
modification factors are employed in order to make the 2
resultant of the modified column loads coincide with the
resultant of the soil pressure under the strip. Column loads Equation (3) is evaluated through application of static
situated to the left of the resultant are multiplied by a equilibrium on summation of
modifying factor F1 and column loads situated to the right F1 (QLeft xi ) F2 Q Right xi )
of the resultant are multiplied by a second modifying factor
F2 as follows.
moments.
q q2 2q q B (3)
1 Bi B 2 1
3 q1 q 2
Application of the mentioned process on strip BDKM, 2
shown in Figure-8 is outlined next.
422
Solving equations (2-a) and (3-a) gives

F1 = 0.891 and F2 = 0.948.
The modified column loads are as follows:
Q1 mod = F1 Q1 = 0.891(3202) = 2853 kN
Q2 mod = F1 Q2 = 0.891(6462) = 5757 kN
Q3 mod = F2 Q3 = 0.948(5608) = 5314 kN
Q4 mod = F2 Q4 = 0.948(2550) = 2417 kN
Figure 8 Strip Loads- Second proposed modification The soil pressure and modified column loads for strip
BDKM are shown in Figure-9.
Solving Equations (2) and (3), the values of F1 and F2
can be easily obtained. Therefore, the shear force and
bending moment diagrams can be constructed.
The column loads on the strip and soil pressure under strip
BDKM are shown in Figure-9.
Substituting in Eqn. (2), one gets
F1 3202 6462 F2 5608 2550
160.6 131.2
(5)(22.4) (2-a)
2
9664 F1 8158 F2 163409 kN Figure 9 Loads on strip BDKM based on the second proposed
modification
Substituting in Eqn. (3),
Figures 10 and 11 show the shear and bending moment
F1 (3202 (0.7) 6462 (7.7)) F2 (5608 (14.7) 2550 (21.7)) diagrams respectively for strip BDKM. One can easily see
that the equilibrium equations are satisfied for shear force,
2 (131.2) 160.6 22.4
16340.9 as well as for bending moment.
3 (160.6 131.2)
51998 .8 F1 137772 .6 F2 189164 .7 (3-a)
3134.9 2484.1 1955.5

560.4
- 460.9
- 2292.4 - 2622.4 - 2830.2
Figure 10 Shear force diagram for strip BDKM - Second proposed modification (kN)
423
- 3121.7 - 2704.9
- 1285.1
196.3 161.1
3035.3
3332.1
Figure 11 Moment diagram for strip BDKM - Second proposed modification (kN.m)
C. Third proposed modification:

This proposed modification involves both of the
columns loads on the strip and the applied soil pressure
under the mat. The strip is modified by finding the average
loads required to make the resultant of column loads equal
to and coincide with that of the average loads at mid point
between the influence points of column loads and soil
reaction. Two sets of modifying factors are applied to make
the resultant of the modified column load equal and
coincide with that of the average loads. The first factor will
be applied to column loads on the left side of the resultant Figure13 Modified loads on strip BDKM-Third proposed
of the modified column loads, while the second factor will modification
be applied to column loads on the right side of the
Qtotal Qi 17822 kN
resultant. Then, the shear force and bending moment
diagrams can then be constructed. 160.6 131.2
The loads acting on the strip are shown in Figure-12 and Soil reaction (q avg Bi B) * 5 * 22.4
the process is detailed as follows. 2
16340.9 kN
16340.9 17822
Average load 17081.5 kN
2
x L 10.65 m and x p 10.82 m,
10.65 10.82
so , x average 10.74 m
2
Figure 12 Loads on strip BDKM before application of the third Substituting in Equations (2) and (3) gives
proposed modification F1 = 0.945 and F2 = 0.975.
Solving Equations (2-a) and (3-a), gives F1 and F2 The modified column loads are as follows:
values. Q1 mod = F1 Q1 = 0.945*3202 = 3026 kN
The modified soil pressure and column modified loads Q2 mod = F1 Q2 = 0.945*6462 = 6106 kN
for strip BDKM are shown in Figures-13 and 14. Q3 mod = F2 Q3 = 0.975*5608 = 5465 kN
Q4 mod = F2 Q4 = 0.975*2550 = 2485 kN
And ; q 2 ,mod 133.6 kN / m 2
q 1 ,mod 171.4 kN / m 2
424
Figure 15 and 16 show the shear and bending moment
diagrams respectively for strip BDK M. One can easily
notice that equilibrium equations are satisfied for shear as
well as for bending mo ment
Figure 14. Applied load on the strip BDKM- Third proposed

modification
3324.7
2556.8 2015.4
598
- 469.6
- 2427.5 - 2781.2 - 2908.3
.
Figure 15 Shear force diagram for strip B D K M - Third proposed modification (kN)
- 3284.8 - 2813.4
- 1353.7
209.5 164.1
3591.2 3047.5
Figure 16 Moment diagram for strip B D K M - Third proposed modification (kN.m)
ranges from 0.40 % to 7.78 % compared with the lower-

V. DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS bound solution.
From the results obtained from the three modification
procedures it is noticed that the first modification
procedure represents an upper bound solution of the results,
while the second procedure represents a lower bound
solution. Moreover, the third proposed modification
procedure represents an average solution of the first and
second proposed modification procedures. The bending
moments obtained from the three procedures are shown in
Figure-17. The differences in bending moments are shown
in Table-2, where the differences for the upper-bound
solution obtained from the first proposed modification Figure 17 Bending moments obtained from the three modification
procedure range from 0.44 % to 15.84 % compared with procedures for BDKM (kN.m)
the lower-bound solution obtained from the second
modification procedure. Similarly, the average solution
obtained from the third proposed modification procedure
425
Table 2 Table-3
Bending moments for Strip BDKM and percentages of Shear forces for Strip BDKM and percentages of
differences among the three solutions differences among the three solutions (kN)
Exterio Column No. Column Column Column
Exterior
Procedure Interior Span (t.m) r Span Proce 2 No. 6 No. 10 No. 14
Span (t.m)
(t.m) dure Rig Rig Rig Rig
Exte Inter Inte Inte Inte Left ht Left ht Left ht Left ht
rior ior rior rior rior Ext. Ext. 1st 63.6 256. 351. 294. 262. 298. 207. 47.7
+ ve - ve + ve - ve + ve - ve + ve Proce 7 53 86 34 6 2 28 2
22.3 344.9 385. 142. 304. 292. dure 13.6 11.9 12.2 12.2 5.71 5.36 5.99 3.54
1st 1 9 98 45 88 10 16.67 1% 0% 4% 4% % % % %
Proced 13.6 10.51 15.8 10.8 0.44 7.99 3.48% 2nd 56.0 229. 313. 262. 248. 283. 195. 46.0
ure 5% % 4% 5% % % Proce 4 24 49 24 41 02 55 9
2nd 19.6 312.1 333. 128. 303. 270. dure 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
16.11
Proced 3 7 21 51 53 49 59.8 242. 332. 278. 255. 290. 201. 46.9
0%
ure 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3rd 0 75 47 12 68 83 54 6
20.9 328.4 359. 135. 304. 281. Proce 6.71 5.89 6.05 6.05 2.93 2.76 3.06 1.89
3rd 5 8 12 37 75 34 16.41 dure % % % % % % % %
Proced 6.72 5.22 7.78 5.34 0.40 4.01 1.86%
ure % % % % % %
VI. CONCLUSIONS
Figure 18 shows the shear forces obtained from the three The three modification procedures suggested by
modification procedures. The differences in shear forces the authors for mat foundation design have succeeded
are shown in Table 3, where the differences for the upper- in solving the main problem associated with the
bound solution obtained from the first proposed conventional rigid method, which is satisfaction of the
modification procedure ranges from 3.54 % to 13.61 % equilibrium equations when constructing shear force
compared with the lower-bound solution obtained from the and bending moment diagrams for the individual
second modification procedure. Similarly, the average strips for the mat.
solution obtained from the third proposed modification The three obtained solutions represent lower
procedure range from 1.89 % to 6.71 % compared with the bound, average and upper bound solution for shear
lower-bound solution. forces and bending moments for each individual strip
of the mat.
Since two-way action is ignored in analyzing the
strips, it is recommended that the lower bound
solution associated with modifying column loads only
be used in evaluating shear forces and bending
moments in the strips.
The maximum differences in bending moments
obtained from the three procedures is less than 16 %.
Figure 18 Shear forces obtained from the three modification
procedures for BDKM (kN) The maximum differences in shear forces obtained
from the three procedures is less than 14 %.
426
REFERENCES ex ,e y = coordinates of the resultant force relative to the
[1 ] Eden, W., McRostie, G., Hall, J., 1973- Measured center of area of the mat
Contact Pressures Below Raft Supporting A stiff Ec = modulus of elasticity of concrete
Building, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 10, pp. F1 = modification factor for column loads located to the
180-192.
left of the resultant
[2 ] American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 3362R, F2 = modification factor for column loads located to
Suggested Design Procedures for Combined Footing
and Mats (ACI 336.2R-88, Reapproved 2002), Detroit, the right of the
Michigan, USA, 2002. I = moment of inertia of the strip of width Bi
[3 ] Gupta, S., Mat Foundations Design and Analysis with I x , I y = moment of inertia of the area of the mat with
a Practical Approach, New Age International limited x and
respect to the
Publishers, New Delhi, 1997.
Qu = factored column loads
[4 ] Teng, W., Foundation Design, Prentice Hall, Prentice
Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, 1962. Qleft = summation of column loads located to the
[5 ] Natarajan, K., Vidivelli, B., 2009- Effect of Column left of the resultant
Spacing on the Behavior of Frame-Raft and Soil Q right = summation of column loads located to the
Systems, Journal of Applied Sciences, Vol. 9, No. 20, right of the resultant
pp. 3629-3640. Qtotal ,mod = modified column loads
[6 ] Bowles, J., Foundation Analysis and Design, 2nd ed.,
qavg ,mod = modified average soil pressure
McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, USA, 1997.
[7 ] Bowles, J., Foundation Analysis and Design, 3rd ed., X i = coordinate of column load in x-direction,
McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, USA, 1982. relative to the point of origin
[8 ] Bowles, J., Foundation Analysis and Design, 4th ed., Yi = coordinate of column load in y-direction, relative
McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, USA, 1996. to the point of origin
[9 ] Bowles, J., Foundation Analysis and Design, 5th ed., x , y = coordinate of any given point on the mat with
McGraw-Hill, International Edition, 1997. respect to x and y axes passing through the centroid
[10 ] Das, B., Principles of Foundation Engineering, of the mat
PWS Engineering, Boston, Massachusetts, USA, 1984 xl = the distance between Qtotal and the left edge of the
[11 ] Das, B., Principles of Foundation Engineering, 4th mat strip
ed., PWS Engineering, Boston, Massachusetts, USA, xp = the distance between the resultant of average soil
1999.. pressure and the left edge of mat strip
[12 ] American Concrete Institute (ACI). 2008. xl x p
Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete x average
2
(318-08) and Commentary (318 R-08), Farmington qu ,net = factored net soil pressure
Hills, Michigan, USA, 2008.
qu ,avg = average factored net soil pressure resultant
NOTATION
K s Bi
A = total area of the mat = characteristic coefficient = 4
B = length of mat strip 4 Ec I
Bi = width of mat strip between centers of adjacent k s = coefficient of subgrade reaction
strips
D.L= Column's service dead load
L.L = Column's service live load
427
Samir Shihada is professor in structural

engineering at the department of civil
engineering in the Islamic University of
Gaza. He has extensive experience in
teaching and practicing structural concrete
design where he has published a refereed
book entitled Reinforced Concrete
Design. His research interests include structural concrete
design codes, seismic design and fire-resistant concrete.
Furthermore, he has served on several government
committees dealing with building damage evaluation and
engineering education.
Jehad T. Hamad has a Ph.D. in the field

of Geotechnical/Geoenvironmental
Engineering - Louisiana State
University - December 1990. He
worked at Southern Illinois University
and Bir-ziet University. Currently, He
is a member of the Civil Engineering
department at the Islamic University-Faculty of
Engineering. He worked as a consultant engineer in a
number of private and public engineering firms in USA and
Gaza Strip in the field of Geotechnical/Geoenvironment
Engineering.
Dr Hamad has published many papers in field of analysis
and design of landfills, improvement of soils and the
impact on environment
428

Ijetae 0412 74

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Ijetae 0412 74

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering

Website: www.ijetae.com (ISSN 2250-2459, Volume 2, Issue 4, April 2012)

Suggested Modifications of the Conventional Rigid Method for

II. IMPORTANCE OF MODIFIED/PROPOSED

Column D.L L.L Qu Xi Q u Xi Yi Q u Yi

Step 1: Evaluate the factored net soil pressure under the

Figure 2 Shear force diagram for strip BDKM (kN)

Figure 3 Bending moment diagram for strip BDKM (kN.m)

It is noticed that while the shear force diagram satisfies

IV. PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS OF THE

Figures 6 and 7 show the shear and bending moment

B. Second proposed modification: Equation (2) is evaluated through application of static

Solving equations (2-a) and (3-a) gives

3134.9 2484.1 1955.5

C. Third proposed modification:

Figure 14. Applied load on the strip BDKM- Third proposed

Figure 16 Moment diagram for strip B D K M - Third proposed modification (kN.m)

ranges from 0.40 % to 7.78 % compared with the lower-

Samir Shihada is professor in structural

Jehad T. Hamad has a Ph.D. in the field

Вам также может понравиться